That’s some serious F*ckery, Ian!

I guess this is the post-Hilary Rosen RIAA.

pay some money on yer plastic an get a piece of plastic. That’s the way it’s always been done.

Pretend I’m really ignorant about this because I am. How do the recording companies know if you are file sharing?

from ian’s link:

The association said Friday that it stopped sending out new lawsuits and warnings in August, and then agreed with several leading U.S. Internet service providers, without naming which ones, to notify alleged illegal file-sharers and cut off service if they failed to stop.

we need to know which ISPs have agreed to do this.

they attempt to down load the item from the peer-to-peer and if you do, you get caught.

that’s one way anyway. expect there are more.

Most likely the Usual Suspects… Time-Warner(me), Comcast, et al…! :-(

Just learned that if ya buy yer wife a pajama gram ya get a whole lot of red hot sex….yep- give her a present fer YOU and it really pays off!

Copyrights are screwed up. What is the left’s position on them?

Does Karl Rove own this pajama gram company? Sure sounds like him.

the question is, do they use the same standard of proof as Homeland Security does? Heck, better question… do the record companies give your name to Homeland Security too? ;-P

Volume of data and connections to peers as opposed to servers. It’s easy to do a reverse lookup from an IP address to a domain name. Dynamic IPs resolve to ISP names, static to web sites (typically). Peer-to-peer, dynamic IP to dynamic IP, connections are a tip off of file sharing.

Typical web use results in a small amount a data uploaded, and a large amount down. File sharing results in more-or-less equal uploads & downloads.

We download things all day from peer to peer since we are designers. There must be more evidence that is used to determine if you are stealing stuff.

Comcast did slow us down when we were down/uploading files so we canceled the service and went with att. Hate all of em.

I’m sorry, I’m really ignorant on this and I don’t understand your explanation. I’ve never downloaded any music so I don’t know how it works.

Thanks for the explanation. Wasn’t aware that ISPs monitor usage that way, nor did I understand about how the transfer works.

they try to download one of their copyrighted items – it’s perfectly legitl to to use peer-to-peer for all kinds of other things.

The pro-Israel liberal strategy of not talking about 9/11 abnormalities has allowed for the public broadcast of Dick Cheney’s recent Sunday morning talk show philosophies regarding the United States Constitution.

http://consortiumnews.com/2008/122208.html

i’ve never downloaded any music either – lots of other stuff though and i love bittorrent. will go find some links for you..

i think this is wrong – i’ve never hear of riaa looking for generic peer-to-peer usage.

unfortunately the good folks at downhillbattle have taken their website down. there used to be lots of good info there… looking for other sources.

Television is about getting victims vegetated enough by the flicker rate to passively absorb advertisements.

Speaking of recording…

The Christmas Guest – done by the songwriter – a message the likes of James Dobson seem to have forgotten

Sorry for the OT, Ian.

There’s also a benefit to the ISPs in this scenario, in that they can shut down heavy bandwidth users with some sense of plausibility and a big helping of CYA.

If you’re a subscriber to a UseNet site it’s easy to upload and download music or anything else. Access used to be included in Verizon’s and BrightHouse’s internet access. Not any more. Now ya get the top 10 lame newsgroups.

if i post an file for people to download – say an mp3 audio file of a congressional hearing i recorded from the committee webstream – then i have to pay my hosting company for the bandwidth. it’s not usually a problem, since very few committee hearings are that popular *g*. but suppose i did have something that several hundred thousand people wanted to download? besides the cost involved, it would probably crash the server (that actually happened when hugh’s list got front paged at reddit).

peer-to-peer is a better way for bigger files – people who download the file from me can then help by making their copy available to others (this is called seeding). it’s more complicated because when there are multiple seeders you might download a bits of the file from different seeders. in this way the whole process is distributed which makes it more robust and much faster.

if the riaa wants to find out who is “sharing” their copyrighted file, all they have to do is join the the peer-to-peer network, request the file and record the ip addresses of the people who are seeding the file.

don’t know if this any better an explanation… for bittorrent (which is the peer-to-peer system i use, although just as a basic user, i’ve never run a tracker) here is some of what wikipedia says:

BitTorrent is a Peer-to-peer file sharing protocol used to distribute large amounts of data. The initial distributor of the complete file or collection acts as the first seed. Each peer who downloads the data also uploads them to other peers. Relative to standard internet hosting, this provides a significant reduction in the original distributor’s hardware and bandwidth resource costs. It also provides redundancy against system problems and reduces dependence on the original distributor.

BitTorrent does not offer its users anonymity. It is possible to obtain the IP addresses of all current, and possibly previous, participants in a swarm from the tracker. This may expose users with insecure systems to attacks.[5] Some clients such as µTorrent get around this to an extent by running data transfer through multiple peers. This makes it harder to trace back the source or destination of an individual piece.

hope that was a little better…

excellent point.

When you use a peer-to-peer program your computer is communicating directly with other computers in the p2p network, as opposed to using intermediate services such as web sites and usenet.

Computers in such a hookup must have a way to identify each other of course, and the means used is the IP (Internet Protocol) address of each computer.

IP addresses are the actual lingua franca of the internet, and domain names are merely conveniences for those pesky humans.

When you’re hooked up peer to peer the p2p network uses your actual numeric IP address on the internet to identify and talk to your pc, this is a numeric form like “192.168.10.1″ (don’t go there, that’s should be your local address).

When you share a bootlegged audio file via bittorent, for example, everyone downloading the file from you must have an IP address identified for your PC… giving the RIAA mole who’s third from the bottom on your list of peers an open-and-shut case against you… well actually not… as the spectacular failures of certain RIAA lawsuits have shown… and IP numbers are neither absolute nor unspoofable…

… but that’s the logic they used to railroad previous victims through the courts and that’s the logic they’ll now use to railroad you via your ISP.

Love love love the pic of the cassettes. Oh, the irony! I remember agonizing over switching to CD and which ones I should buy first. Remember fewer songs for more money?

Anyway, in honor of music, the Internet and Ian’s outstanding blogging, I give you this charitable anthem:
Don’t Download this Song.

Once in a while
maybe you will feel the urge
to break
international copyright law…

I’m not understanding this. Is the idea that it’s a drag that people object to their creative works being stolen?

Slight OT but an example of the broken distribution system:

Back in ‘96-7, the television series, “Dark Skies” which was similar to X-Files, but without the distraction of other threads. It kept its focus on the UFO conspiracy. Heh.

Like many others, I never taped it at the time. Grrrr. Well, it developed a cult following, and fans clamoured for years about a DVD release. Finally, Sony was ‘gonna’ do it. Creator Bryce Zabel told them the background music rights would be a problem — he knew as it’d cost him a lot for the one-time rights. But big ol’ Sony knew better, and even announced a release date. That never happened. They ran into the ‘jeebus, this will cost us more than we can make!’

So they licensed the DVD project to some other outfit, IIRC, in U.K. Same promises, same outcome redux.

Well, two weeks ago, I did another google and lo! some U.S. site had ‘high-res remastered from original film DVDs.’ Uh huh. I took the gamble, secure site, confirmation of order, confirmation of shipping (10-14 business days to the land of oz.) Parcel arrived yesterday, had to sign for it at the post orfice. Interesting package from China post …

Now, I haven’t loaded up a DVD yet, in the midst of finishing off another series. But the internal packaging was a VHS container, albeit with a cover, and back with series description in proper English. Inside were 5 DVDs, each in a protective soft envelope. It’ll be interesting to see the audio and video quality …

Obviously, this is a pirate product — if they did generate from original film, one wonders where/how that came about?

The bottom line is: Sony got 100% of nothing when they could have listened to Zabel. What he licensed for the series was the top songs of the years covered — and he had an alternate playlist that would have worked nearly as well and cost far less. But the suits knew best. Right.

Zabel bio on imdb

LindaR asked

“I’m not understanding this. Is the idea that it’s a drag that people object to their creative works being stolen?”

Nah, it’s the backlash from the literally cancerous growth of copyright terms for the sole benefit of the megacorps, the RIAA et al going completely nuts over the existence of the internet and bribing Congress to pass such overweening laws such as the damnable Digital Millennium Eternal Copyright and Instant Death to Purorted Infringers Act… and above all else the eternal stupidity of non-techs trying to design laws that govern tech… laws that don’t work, can’t work, that harm innocent people, that waste time and money and still don’t work.

There’s a lot of pushback on those points alone.

That should have read

Digital Millennium Eternal Copyright and Instant Death to Purported Infringers Act

Hmmm… have to go to an external editor for comments here…

I bought more CDs during the brief life of the first iteration of Napster than I have before or since. Why? Because I could try before I bought. I go by the three-song rule: A CD has to have three really good songs on it (or one really REALLY good, can’t-live-without song on it) before I will plunk down $15 for it. I’d been stuck in the 1980s musically and was bringing myself into the mid-90s via Napster — I’d bought Dandy Warhols, Luscious Jackson, and Nirvana CDs because I was able to try them out on Napster first.

And then Napster was taken away, and I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of major-label CDs I’ve bought since then. All the CDs I’ve bought in the past few years have been indie labels or the artists’ own releases. Way to go, RIAA!

I see.

So people want their Mickey Mouse cartoons. It’s not about downloading the latest songs and movies they like.

I want Vera Wang to design a wardrobe for me. I want to wear it for a while, see if I like it. Then I might buy one or two of the better pieces.

Actually, as Ian said and I repeated, it’s about the megacorp’s lawyers assuming the power of judge, jury, and executioner regardless of whether the accused is actually innocent or not.

I just gave some broader background :)

The fact it’s also about the megacorp’s using congress to pass nonsense laws legislating the continued existence of failed business models and that it’s also about the megacorps using the existence of those laws to harm demonstrably innocent people… those facts and quite a few others are just additional features of the megacorps’ doomed attempts to control and contain the digital age.

But are you saying that the lack of restraint and the repeated failures of the RIAA et al even under the eyes of the courts gives you no worries at all about the megacorp lawyers directly dictating your ISP access unfettered by any legal oversight?

@36 That’s ridiculous. You actually can try on clothes before you buy them, you know. You can walk around the store in them, see them in the full length mirror, twist in them in the dressing room to make sure they don’t ride up funny when you sit down or bend over.

Unless you’re going to argue that it’s wrong to listen to songs on radio stations you can tune into for free, you’re making a ludicrous argument. Unfortunately, DJs don’t explore all artists and albums equally, and the corporatized stations mainly seem to ensure that those artists in whom much has been invested will pay off. People need to try before they buy, even food vendors introducing new or unusual products know it.

And the artists get paid jack compared to the record company profits off CDs whose manufacturing costs are counted in pennies.

Faulty parallelism, let’s explore some of the reasons why:.

1. Music downloaders don’t ask creators to make new work for them.
2. As Natasha Chart points out @36, trying something out does not consume it.
3. Clothing is physical and if Vera Wang makes some, whether customize for you or not, and you then take it from her without paying, then she no longer has it; therefore she has an actual loss. By contrast, digital music files are not physical and when a music downloader obtains a copy, there is no reduction in the retail supply of copies.
4. Not every music download displaces a sale, in practice very very few do.
5. In the case of major labels, almost no commercial recordings make back their royalty advances, most records lose money. All profit comes from a very small percentage of releases succeeding as hits. As a result, the creator does not receive any less money in the unlikely event that an actual sale is displaced by a given download. The label just loses more money than it was already losing, is all.
6. Try-before-you-buy is not unusual in recorded music, in the past this was called “radio” and “mix tapes”.

Hope that helps explain a little.